Signals Over the Air

Hulshof


U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Columbia, is drawing fire for his votes on a bill reauthorizing and expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program from the campaign arm for House Democrats.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that the six-term congressman will be targeted with “ radio ads, a mobile text message campaign, and an e-mail campaign.” Other lawmakers included in the buy are:

• Richard Baker (LA-06)
• Steve Chabot (OH-01)
• Ric Keller (FL-08)
• Joe Knollenberg (MI-09)
• Peter Roskam (IL-06)
• John Shadegg (AZ-03)

“Across the country Republicans are feeling the heat for supporting President Bush instead of the health care for America’s kids,” Rep. Craig Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said. “Since Republicans continue to play politics with children’s health care, we will continue to go district by district to hold them accountable for voting in lockstep with President Bush.”

Hulshof has repeatedly voted against legislation to expand the program for families who don’t have health insurance but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. He has given a multitude of reasons for his votes, ranging from the cigarette tax increase used to pay for the expansion to the inclusion of families making $60,000 to $80,000 onto the program. He said last week that a revamped version of the bill didn’t do enough to keep illegal immigrants off the program.

But proponents of the legislation note that people included who make that income level pay premiums. They also noted that the bill did allow states to mandate certain documentation in order to be enrolled onto the program.

The SCHIP bill has been a popular instrument for Democrats to use against GOP lawmakers. Out-of-state groups, for example, launched advertisements targeting Rep. Sam Graves, R-Tarkio, for his votes against the expansion.

But unlike Graves – who is expected to face a competitive match-up against former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes — Hulshof does not have an opponent yet for the 2008 election cycle. He’s won his last three elections with over 60 percent of the vote.

So why would the national arm of the House Democrats exert resources against an incumbent in a district that isn’t on anybody’s list of competitive electoral races yet? Could it be a sign that national Democrats are considering targeting Hulshof the same way they’ve targeted Graves?

Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the DCCC, says the advertising campaign is about holding a lawmaker accountable for votes.

“Since Republicans like Congressman Hulshof and Congressman Graves continue to play politics with children’s health care, we will continue to go district by district to hold them accountable for voting in lockstep with President Bush,” Rudominer said.

Hulshof spokesman Scott Baker noted that some of the targeted lawmakers – such as Sheddegg – live in fairly safe House districts. That, he said, could mean the DCCC could be trying to make them vote in favor of the legislation. Baker also said there has been some constituent reaction to the SCHIP bill. He said a few constituents have called about the 61-cent increase in cigarette taxes to fund the expansion.

On a similar note, Baker didn’t know whether Hulshof attended a rather testy meeting with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland. Hoyer received scathing criticism for not reaching out to Republicans in order to get a veto-proof bill through the House.

From the Politico:

They also criticized him and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois for failing to stop his allies outside Congress from running attack ads in their districts, while they were discussing a bipartisan deal.

The result was a predictable one for this bitterly divided Congress. The House vote for a second SCHIP bill was a healthy majority, but not the two-thirds needed to override another veto vowed by President Bush. Only one Republican switched his vote — to oppose the measure.

Democrats accused Republicans of hurting kids. Republicans howled about a heavy-handed, uncompromising Democratic majority. And another chance at bipartisan consensus slipped away.

“They spent $1.5 million through their various shill outreach groups attacking me and a handful of my colleagues,” Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) said before the Hoyer meeting, “but they did not spend five minutes to approach me to ask for my vote.”

The SCHIP program will expire in mid-November without another extension from Congress.

Click on the link below to read the entire text of the advertisement.


Congressman Kenny Hulshof – you receive quality health insurance provided at taxpayers’ expense, so why do you continue to vote against providing quality affordable health care to Missouri’s children?

With the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – SCHIP – set to expire, you have a simple choice to make:

Continue to stand with President Bush or with Missouri’s kids.

SCHIP legislation will provide health care coverage for nearly 10 million children, including over 100,000 children here in Missouri, and is funded by a 61 cent increase in the tobacco tax.

Yet President Bush has vetoed it and you stand with him – instead of kids.

Congress has revised the bill to override Bush’s veto. When will you stop moving the bar and supporting the president – and start siding with Missouri children?

Congressman Hulshof – stand with kids, NOT George Bush.

Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, http://www.DCCC.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

About jrosenbaum
Jason Rosenbaum

15 Responses to Signals Over the Air

  1. Stormwatcher says:

    Bipartisanship would be ideal, but Missourians need results. If the current members of Congress can’t put country before party we should replace the incumbents.

  2. Jasonb says:

    Stormwatcher – I’m sure Congressman Huslhof appreciates your acknowledgement that he cast his vote for the country and not party. I’m also sure he appreciates your message to Skelton, Clay, Carnahan and Cleaver to put the country’s interest ahead of their party’s petty political games.

  3. Jasonb says:

    Stormwatcher – I’m sure Congressman Huslhof appreciates your acknowledgement that he cast his vote for the country and not party. I’m also sure he appreciates your message to Skelton, Clay, Carnahan and Cleaver to put the country’s interest ahead of their party’s petty political games.

  4. Timmy says:

    Congressman Hulshof stands for reelection and it has absolutely nothing to do with kids.

    The modern Red Party, formerly known as Republicans, has always been about helping themselves and their special interests/friends, which typically means “thems that has it”, not “thems that ain’t”. Been that way since our youth, probably be that way when we are all gone.

    That is and remains the main difference between the Red and Blue slime which as Stormwatcher observed, need to be replaced, regardless of their party affiliation.

  5. Stormwatcher says:

    JasonB –

    My point proven!

  6. Stormwatcher says:

    JasonB –

    My point proven!

  7. Jane Whitesides says:

    Mr. Baker mentions “some constituent reaction” concerning the cigarette tax. I presume he means that those constituents don’t support the tax increase. Congressman Hulshof didn’t support using Medicare provider overpayments to fund SCHIP, and the pay as you go policy requires offsets or funding for new spending. (The Republicans seem to think only social programs have to be paid for – everything else can go on the charge card.)

    I notice Mr. Baker doesn’t mention any constituent support for SCHIP, even though there has been a considerable amount throughout the district, especially from the medical community.

    Mr. Hulshof’s reasons for not supporting expansion of SCHIP change every time he speaks about it. I hope his real reason is not to march in lockstep with the President. He hasn’t earned that kind of support.

  8. Jane Whitesides says:

    Mr. Baker mentions “some constituent reaction” concerning the cigarette tax. I presume he means that those constituents don’t support the tax increase. Congressman Hulshof didn’t support using Medicare provider overpayments to fund SCHIP, and the pay as you go policy requires offsets or funding for new spending. (The Republicans seem to think only social programs have to be paid for – everything else can go on the charge card.)

    I notice Mr. Baker doesn’t mention any constituent support for SCHIP, even though there has been a considerable amount throughout the district, especially from the medical community.

    Mr. Hulshof’s reasons for not supporting expansion of SCHIP change every time he speaks about it. I hope his real reason is not to march in lockstep with the President. He hasn’t earned that kind of support.

  9. Stormwatcher says:

    I completely agree with Ms. Whitesides.

  10. Jasonb says:

    I would bet that Congressman Huslhof has a) not heard from a majority of his constituents because they know he is doing the right thing, b) heard from a small vocal minority trying to represent themselves as a majority, and c) further secured his re-election by standing up to political gamesmanship and for his constituents.

    This whole expansion of SCHIP is a political ploy by the democrats. I’ve seen the talking points all over this blog – most full of distortions such as Hulshof voted against SCHIP etc. With there ever increasing slide of approval – democrats may not get another chance to screw up as they have done so well so far. Now that outcome would be truly best for the longterm outcome of the country.

  11. Mark Buhrmester says:

    I really don’t understand how this is a Democratic political ploy as you claim it is, JasonB.

    This is simply about providing health care to kids who don’t have it, and all the GOP can think about are their friends in the insurance industry who worry that there might be a few (but not many) kids who switch from private insurance to SCHIP. So what? SCHIP is a very successful and efficient program. Why not support it?

  12. steve jackson says:

    No the Republicans do not believe in a program that is an open ended, blank check for democrats to use as political fodder in the upcoming election.

    Democrats dont care about, in fact they want the vetos so they can use it against the republicans. If they cared they would come to the table with the President and come up with a good bill.

    As a taxpayer any system that covers “children” to age 25 and covers family who make close to $80,000 is not an efficient well run program. It is a potential money black hole like everything else the Democrats have set-up in the last 50 years.

  13. Simon says:

    Hulshof might be a bit ignorant or purposely misleading us. That 60-80 thousand range come as a result of waivers. Try living in San Francisco or New York on 60,000 a year with a family. Most entry level jobs start around 40,000. Again republicans looking out for big money interest while medical debt strangles the middle class and destroys their credit.

  14. Jasonb says:

    Republicans support programs that can be paid for and sustained. Republicans supported SCHIP and still do. Republicans do not support SCHIP expansion to those who have significant incomes – to those who are not children – and to those who already have insurance.

    Democrats on the other hand support everything that appears to sound good but is not fiscally nor morally sound. The foolish mechanism of funding the $35b increase on increased tobacco taxes cannot be over emphasized. The majority of smokers who would be affected are those who are lower income. Essentially many who have lower incomes than those who the program would have been expanded to cover would be paying. And if anti-smoking campaigns are even the least bit successful – the taxpayer gets left holding the bag for democrat government largesse.

    Democrats made absolutely no compromise on their resuurected bill. They didn’t eliminate those who already have insurance – those who are not children – or do anything to address the illegal immigrant issue other than talk.

    But then again as demonstrated time and again on this blog alone democrats have a hard time distinguishing between those who create wealth and are allowed to keep some of it and those who have their hand out for taxpayer dough. That should be ended to include corporate give aways – not the ones that let them keep more of their money but the ones where they get something for nothing. Of course if we applied that measure – the government would be a lot smaller because we wouldn’t need all the programs government is doing that we the people as individuals should be doing.

    Democrat SCHIP expansion can easily be summed up: Pure politics – no substance – lots of smoke – deceiptful – irresponsible plan.

  15. Jane Whitesides says:

    SCHIP in Missouri does not cover adults. You must be uninsured for 6 months before you can apply, and only people who can prove they cannot get coverage elsewhere are eligible.

    If you have a child with a chronic or debilitating disease or who has used up their health benefits, you probably will not be able to purchase insurance at any price. This program allows (within income guidelines) those parents to insure their children. In Missouri, almost everyone pays a premium for their SCHIP (MC+) coverage.

    Fewer and fewer employer based plans are offering family coverage; deductibles and co-pays for those that do are becoming unaffordable; and the cost of market based care is increasing rapidly. The real truth is that if we had effective access to affordable health care, we wouldn’t need any of these programs. Maybe it’s time we moved toward that goal.

  16. Simon says:

    Unfortunately Jane, jasonb is pretty much spewing the same talking points the republicans have been saying for years. They will talk about Adam Smith’s invisible hand guiding markets and so on, but fail to realize this same hand can harm as well

Leave a comment